technically speaking, more pixels = better quality. in reality, it enables you to have better quality.

so 1200 would offer the ability to have more vertical pixels, which has the ability to give better visual quality - but in the end it depends on the game, and whether it was designed for 16:9 and gives options for fov, etc - otherwise all it will do is stretch the picture for more pixels, which WILL NOT give you better quality.

1200 is technically better but 1080 is the standard, which gives benefits of it's own. in most cases there is a simple workaround like black bars to stop it from stretching, so if money isn't the issue and you want to be able to get better quality while understanding you may have to fiddle with some options or even ini files to get all the games you want to work optimally, then 1200 would be the option. i went 1080.

Can you tell me what resolution is more suitable (more graphic quality) for Gaming?

Click to expand...

There are 2,073,600 pixels on a 1920x1080 and 2,304,000 on 1920x1200.

Is better in every way for gaming FOV. Only bad thing is the added stress on your hardware. More to render, more pixels to manage. The more you have the better the image, and also higher resolutions tend not to need so much Anti-Aliasing.

Depending on your GPU, your budget, and if you are using the PC only for gaming, you might want to consider a 1600x900 or 1680x1050. Your GPU might be able to give you a better quality picture on these resolutions than a higher resolution.

I would never choose for such a low resolution, because I use my PC for work, productivity, reading PDFs etc. and want more pixels for better screen and font readability and more of an A4 page on the screen at a time.

I would go for a 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 and run it at a lower resolution so that my GPU could cope. The monitor would take care of the scaling, so you set your gaming resolution to (say) 1280x800 and get nice fast gameplay.

I have used 1920*1080 displays for several years and don't care about the 16:9 vs. 16:10 debate. 16:10 monitors are less common these days and are typically more expensive than their 16:9 counterparts. Many games these days are console port trash so they tend to work great with 16:9 monitors, so that's why I have used them. I currently own a $320 ASUS VG236HE 23" 120Hz monitor and it's the best monitor I have ever owned (even though it is glossy TN panel it seems vastly better than the generic TN monitors everyone gripes about).

I still have a 2005 Samsung SyncMaster 940BW at work and while it is 16:10 it's a measly 1440*900 19" monitor and I would easily replace it with a 1080p monitor in a heartbeat.

I have used 1920*1080 displays for several years and don't care about the 16:9 vs. 16:10 debate. 16:10 monitors are less common these days and are typically more expensive than their 16:9 counterparts.

Click to expand...

This and this. Cheap 1920x1200 are like €200 here and you can get a pretty decent IPS 1920x1080 for that.

I do not make a problem of money or performance of the vga, but simply the monitor (and its aspect ratio) more suitable for video games, saw that the exclusive use is gaming.
I read around that is important the native aspect ratio of the game, which is for most of them 16:9. This dont has particular problems in 1920x1200 but can lead to a slight loss of vision (the sides) or the complete picture but with black bars above and below

I disagree completely with your first gif/flash showing 16:9, 16:10 and 16:12

16:9 is more letterbox than 16:10. But you cannot think of 16:10 as less, cutting off the sides. No. 16:10 is everything and all 16:9 offers PLUS extra pixels/FoV up and down. It's simple. They are both 1920 in the x. One is 1080 in the y, the other 1200. Clearly, one can show MORE than the other. The gif/flash is faking/falsifying the results by pretending the y is the same but x is less. How disingenuous is that?! Horizontal FoV (measured as an angle) has changed between screenshots!

so 1200 would offer the ability to have more vertical pixels, which has the ability to give better visual quality - but in the end it depends on the game, and whether it was designed for 16:9 and gives options for fov, etc - otherwise all it will do is stretch the picture for more pixels, which WILL NOT give you better quality.

Click to expand...

That about sums it up. Most games support 1920x1200, so you'll actually get almost 11.1% more field of view (FOV) vertically with a 1920x1200 monitor. The horizontal FOV will be the same.

It's also a heck of a lot nicer when working with productivitiy tools and web browsing, quite simply, you'll see 11.1% more of a page.

I have TWO 1920x1200 monitors at home, one is actually a Samsung 27" 1080p HDTV (which scales a 1080p signal nicely to fill the screen). I'd ALWAYS take 1920x1200 given the choice.

I disagree completely with your first gif/flash showing 16:9, 16:10 and 16:12

16:9 is more letterbox than 16:10. But you cannot think of 16:10 as less, cutting off the sides. No. 16:10 is everything and all 16:9 offers PLUS extra pixels/FoV up and down. It's simple. They are both 1920 in the x. One is 1080 in the y, the other 1200. Clearly, one can show MORE than the other. The gif/flash is faking/falsifying the results by pretending the y is the same but x is less. How disingenuous is that?! Horizontal FoV (measured as an angle) has changed between screenshots!

Click to expand...

I've seen this person post on other forums with the same false argument. The true way to look at 16:10 vs. 16:9 and comparing 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200 would be to show a 1920x1200 picture and remove 60 pixels from both the top and bottom of the 1920x1080 picture.

The panel quality and type are FAR more important than the meager diff between 1200 and 1080 pixels.
I've yet to see a TN panel come anywhere near my 4yr old 8 bit Acer 25.5in LCD.
TN panels{one's I've had a chance to fiddle with} are faint and lack depth and detail.

Aren't there some games that experience inexplicable performance decreases at a particular Aspect Ratio? I remember Bulletstorm was one such example where using a 4:3 or 16:10 resolution made the game borderline unplayable at launch. I think it was since patched in the case of Bulletstorm, but it's something to consider.

That about sums it up. Most games support 1920x1200, so you'll actually get almost 11.1% more field of view (FOV) vertically with a 1920x1200 monitor. The horizontal FOV will be the same.

But with productivitiy tools and web browsing, quite simply, you'll see 15% more of a page.

Click to expand...

Fixed.

On productivity tools, ie applications, you get the taskbar 32px, the windows title 32px, the menu bar 32px, the icon shortcuts 32px for one row, 64px for two rows. In MS Word 2003 you get the top margin 32px and bottom footer bars 64px. In MS Excel 2003 you get cell entry and column headings bar 64px and the tabs and calc footers 64px.

This means a 1080y actually gives the user "working space" of 1080-32-32-32-64-64-64=792px.
Whereas a 1200y gives the user "working space" of 1200-32-32-32-64-64-64=912px

The difference is 120/792 or 15%. If your screen shots 32 lines of text in MS Word 2003, or 32 rows in Excel 2003, that is equivalent to another 5 lines of text or 5 rows!

With MS Office 2007+, the ribbon bars add another 64px making the difference 17%

Email clients are similar to MS Office 2003. You will see another 5 emails on each screen.

I thought cutting off the sides then enlarging going from 1080 to 1200 was game-specific, but I just tried it with a few games and they all do it... What the hell man? Do any games have a vertical FOV option?

I thought cutting off the sides then enlarging going from 1080 to 1200 was game-specific, but I just tried it with a few games and they all do it... What the hell man? Do any games have a vertical FOV option?

I thought cutting off the sides then enlarging going from 1080 to 1200 was game-specific, but I just tried it with a few games and they all do it... What the hell man? Do any games have a vertical FOV option?

This is why I don't bother with the screen ratio debate. I simply went with a 1080p 16:9 monitor a couple years ago because it was affordable to do so. The main game I play happens to be Team Fortress 2 (which I also play competitively), and I have ~3100 hours total in it. Your testing proves that TF2 at 16:9 is superior to the other aspect ratios, and I'd imagine this is applicable to most if not all other Source based games, and that is what matters to me.

There are 169 1080p monitors and 20 1200p monitors currently available on Newegg. 1080p monitors start at $109 and 1200p monitors start at $280. Being snobby and paying a ton more for a probably outdated 1200p monitor just because "it's 10% taller" is a rather crappy argument. In fact, for slightly above the price of the cheapest Samsung 24" 5ms 1200p monitor, you can get a 23" ASUS VG236HE which is a fantastic 2ms 1080p monitor that has a 120Hz dual-link DVI input and the nicest TN panel I have ever seen. 5ms TN panels are so 2005, and I would not drop $300 on one.

How about some pros and cons for 16:9 monitors?

Pros:
Cost effective, lots of models on the market.
Standard aspect ratio for HD movies released on consumer mediums. (seriously, guys, everyone considers scaling evil, so how is scaling your 1080p movie to 1200p suddenly acceptable?)
Most games support 16:9 well, since many are ported from consoles played on 16:9 TVs.
No black bars on fullscreen 16:9 content, which is basically most entertainment content nowadays.
Potential ~10% performance increase in games (because you have to render 230,400 extra pixels on a 16:10 display, and chances are your game will still chop off your sides to fill the extra height up).
3D or 120Hz models readily available.

Cons:
Less desktop "height" (but if you have some document fetish and are so concerned with 120 pixels of height being gone, you should really consider a professional 27/30 inch monitor if you are scared of zooming out).

If you're doing any work that you are going to gripe about not having enough space to work with, get a higher resolution monitor. Plain and simple.